Seven United Kingdoms under the Iron Throne, and the Targaryens: An era coming to an end?

[Kyll.Ing.]

(AKA Fire and Blood, the Wildfire Plot revisited and how the series will end).

Long, windy (and pompous?) title, but I just read through the Compendium of Theories, and felt like naming my pet theory something fancy too. Sorry if this turns out not to be my own pet theory, though, I can imagine that others may have had the same ideas before me.

Anyway, we all know that one of the core elements of ASoIaF is the fight for the Iron Throne. This monstrous chair, located in the capital city, is the definite power seat of all seven kingdoms, the place from which Westeros is ruled, from the shores of Dorne to the Wall - or so it has been for the last 300 years, as noted by the calendar in use. The actual number of independent kingdoms in Westeros appears to have been varying throughout its history, but at the time of Aegon's conquest, the number was seven. And such, the realm is named "The Seven Kingdoms". Easy to remember, at least. Anyone who sits the Iron Throne rules the entire continent, so logically there's been a bit of fighting over that precious chair.

Though, it's important to remember that Westeros itself has been around for thousands of years. Just a little over three centuries past, there was no Iron Throne, no King's Landing, and the Seven Kingdoms were, truly, seven separate kingdoms.

This all changed when House Targaryen showed up. Having moved out of Valyria, the Targaryens invaded Westeros, founded a capital city, united the seven kingdoms, forged the Iron Throne and ruled the continent as one kingdom. The integrity of the Realm seems to be tied to the Targaryens, and the new order they brought with them when they invaded. They built the capital city from scratch. They united the realm, and forged the throne from which it is controlled. Essentially, the Seven Kingdoms is a Targaryen construct. I've got a feeling we will see the final return to the Old Order as the saga comes to a close in the remaining two books of A Song of Ice and Fire.

The main reason for this is, well, this is a series after all. As exciting and life-like as it all is, it is a piece of literature, a story. It has to end at some point, and I would be a little disappointed if it all ends with "and then life went on, just like you've seen it for the last seven books". GRRM promised us a bittersweet ending, and I can't think of an ending more bittersweet than the end of the Seven Kingdoms.

So, why do I think this will all come to an end? "It would make a nice ending for the series" is kind of a lame argument, and a particularly weak one too. Well, again we have to consider the symbols.

As I mentioned, the order brought on by the Targaryens seems to be considered the "proper" way to rule Westeros. The Iron Throne is the most iconic symbol of the Game of Thrones franchise, it is invariably linked to power and rulership over the entire realm. Ambitious characters wish to rule the Seven Kingdoms, symbolized by sitting on the Iron Throne. It's practically taken for granted that in order to rule the Seven Kingdoms, you have to take King's Landing and sit on the Throne, just like the Targaryens did. While the Targaryens were dethroned, their system remained in use.

For instance, look at Robert Baratheon and how he ruled the realm: Sitting on the Throne, in the Red Keep, in King's Landing, surrounded by a Kingsguard. All in all, nothing changed but the regent, and neither did it once Joffrey took over. When Renly Baratheon aspired to take power (take the throne), he too picked seven fighters to guard him as he headed for King's Landing. Stannis, also aspiring to be the king, considers the Iron Throne to be the way to conquering the kingdom. Never is an alternative brought up, like declaring a new capital, rule from there, and gradually shift the power of the realm away from King's Landing. The same traits appear to be repeated by any would-be ruler with greater ambitions than independence: Iron Throne, Seven United Kingdoms. All in all, the concept of ruling Westeros is strictly tied to the Iron Throne in King's Landing. Without the throne, the realm isn't united.

Another "symbol" is how the series chooses to put most of its focus on a relatively narrow 300-year part of the history of Westeros. Most of the story takes place when the Seven Kingdoms are ruled from King's Landing, although there should be many thousand years of history to tell of. Aegon's Conquest is the defining "turning point" of the series, the fixed point in time from which the events are measured, where the current order is established. Aegon built the capital city, forged the throne and yeah I've already said this a few times. Either way, the Conquest can be considered the beginning of the story about the game of thrones.

As the series marches on, we have seen that both the integrity of the realm and the throne itself appear to be threatened. We'll consider the realm first:

Although the Seven Kingdoms is one kingdom on paper, the ideas of seven separate kingdoms live on in modern day Westeros. Both the Iron Islands, Dorne and the North both appear to be distinct, homogenous societies, being somewhat sheltered from the rest through geography. They have their own distinct culture, their own ways of warfare, and in some cases their own religion. They also have longstanding traditions from their times as independent kingdoms, with customs that are passed on to this day. Recently, both the North and the Iron Islands both actively pursued independence. Dorne is also dreaming of independence, but their ruler (still referred to as Prince), Doran Martell, is too subtle to openly declare it at the moment.

With a slight lack of POV characters in the "courts" of the remaining four kingdoms, it's uncertain if they too wish to become independent of the Throne, but the Vale has a similarly sheltered position to the three kingdoms mentioned above, and they did not participate in the War of the Five Kings. The remaining three kingdoms (the Westerlands, the Stormlands and the Reach) aren't as distinctly separated by geography as the four others are, and they are also closer to the capital city and inter-trade a lot, but I think closer examination would reveal greater differences between then than can be seen at first glance, and possibly also seeds of separatism. I don't have any quotes for my post, but if I were to hunt for any, this would be the issue I'd like to see mentioned. Either way, with Dorne and the Iron Islands breaking away (and most of the Northern lords supporting the separatist Starks, should any of their children resurface), it's safe to say that the realm is coming apart.

Now, for the throne being threatened: This is also directly linked to the Targaryen dynasty, specifically the last of its kings, King Aerys II, who decided to take King's Landing with him if he died. In secret, jars of wildfire was placed all over the city, ready to be detonated if the city was attacked. Luckily, Aerys and his conspirators succumbed to a fatal longsword epidemic before the plot could be set in motion, but the vast majority of the wildfire was never removed. We see in A Clash of Kings that the alchemists manage to find a couple of stashes of it around the city, but it can be assumed that most of the wildfire remains where Aerys' minions left it. According to Jaime, some was even put under the Red Keep itself, but so far the books haven't mentioned any wildfire being found there since. And, as was pointed out to Tyrion when he ordered the Wildfire in Clash, the substance becomes more unstable as it ages. For every passing day, the danger posed by the wildfire grows. Once it goes off, it can be assumed that the entire city will be burned up. After all, this was the very thing Aerys asked for when he ordered the pyromancers to rig he city. And with the city, the Red Keep and the Iron Throne would likely vanish too. I think you all agree with me that it would be very weird for the series to end without this being addressed in some way. Either, some would make a point out of removing it, or it will be detonated somehow. It's not like to just be forgotten. Chekhov's gun and all that...

EDIT: Whoops, I forgot to say anything about the Targaryens themselves. Oh well, let's add another paragraph before anybody notices it was missing...

The Targaryens are also a dying breed, so to say. There's Aegon, who the fans doubt the authenticity of, to say the least. There has probably been written more words about Ageon NOT being a Targaryen than the series contains in total. There's Daenerys, who has familiarised herself with (and grown to love) Essosi culture rather than Westerosi, and she has never set foot in Westeros. I wouldn't be surprised if she decides to ditch the whole thing, or arrives in time to literally ignite the disaster. You can also make a case for Jon Snow, though I don't see him going to King's Landing and becoming a king per se. He fits better as the last remnant of the Targaryens, rather than a king who marries his aunt to restore the status quo from the start of the series (which, in itself, is a notable exception to the millenia-spanning Westerosi history of separate kingdoms).

Now, I don't think King's Landing will be blown up in the immediate future. Martin has promised that more people will get to rub their behinds at the barbed seat, so it seems given that the Iron Throne will survive another king or two. No, this is definitely something for the last 100 pages of the last book. The series has to end somehow, and the wildfire makes a great, symbolic way to end the saga of the Seven Kingdoms with a bang, while still implying it has a future.

The symbolism would be fitting. King's Landing was founded by the first Targaryen king, and the last one has left great potential to destroy it. With the destruction of the Iron Throne, the series' definite power symbol would be lost, in a time where many of the seven kingdoms want independence. The token fire of the Targaryens would destroy the power seat they created, and leave their united Westeros without a capital. It would end their construct, the symbol of the unified realm, in fire and blood (now, these words seem familiar... where have I seen them before?). Without King's Landing, there would be nothing to hold the realm together. We already know that independence from the iron throne is sought by several of the key factions, whereas others wish to seize the throne and rule the realm through it. How to end all those plot lines in a satisfactory way?

From the ashes, seven new kingdoms would rise. Or old kingdoms, that depends on how you look at it. Some are even well underway already. The realm would be back where it started before Aegon's Conquest, with several separate kingdoms, just like it had been for thousands of years. The Seven Kingdoms would slowly be a thing of the past, a temporary disturbance in the traditional disorder, and the ruins of Kings Landing would be just like the ruins of Summerhall, Castamere, Harrenhal, Chroyane, or countless other cities. Tales of old greatness and glory, ruin and ashes, eventually turning into legends as life goes on.

I don't know who will sit the Iron Throne when/if this happens. I have no idea on how to tie it in with the threat from the Others (other than them representing ice, this definitely being fire - though, the dragons do the "fire" thing well enough already). I have no solid evidence for the "theory", other than the episode of GoT (S2E10) where Daenerys wades through ashes in the Red Keep. All I know is that it would present a very fitting end to the series, but also letting life go on in the greater sense. This isn't Narnia, which was completely erased at the end of the books, or the Bible which practically ends with the end of the world as we know it. The ruin of King's Landing would end the Targaryens' construct of the Seven Kingdoms being united under a common power, but let the rest of Martin's world remain relatively intact. Westeros would go on, but something would end too.

I'm sorry I don't have dug up any specific quotes, any help would be appreciated here.

Umm... yeah, that was what I wanted to say. Now, eh... discuss?

[Veraxes Blackfyre]

Hmmm.. Given me a lot to think about. Quite probable, some of the things you've discussed

[The Bittersteel]

This is a good read and an interesting theory but I take issue with a few things.

1. I don't think independence is Doran Martell's preferred goal, I think it was actually a marriage between one of his children and the next Targaryen King/Queen to improve his Houses standing.

2. Your underplaying the increased unity that's taken place over the past 300 years in Westeros. Regions are now more reliant on each other rather than more self sustaining it appears to me, for example the Reach and agriculture. They also now share a currency.

3. While independence holds attraction for some for many it's going back to a time of continual war whereas unity under the Targaryens has been more (although not totally obviously) peaceful.

4. The war against the Others could draw Westeros together against a common enemy, rather than tear it apart.

In short while I believe Westeros will be permanently changed by the events of the series I do not see a return to the previous Seven separate Kingdoms structure. If you look at real world history the trend tends to be the evolution to a 'nation state' after the feudal age, rather than a breakup back to smaller tribes and territories.

Edit: Thanks for the long explanation though, it has given me a lot to think about.

[natty bumppo]

The Seven Kingdoms was just the state of affairs when Aegon arrived. There is no reason why Westeros should go back to exactly that power structure. As things are, the realm the Targs forged is toast. But the war against the Others will probably reunite it. They don't stand much of a chance if they keep fighting another.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Most likely, one way or another. Westeros does not possess the technology to keep such a vast continent under one rule. The only thing that could achieve that were Aegon's dragons. And a bit of inertia afterwards, where all the grievances aired out into the Blackfyre Rebellions (targeting the IT itself) and Robert's Rebellion (after which a very charismatic guy with ties to four! regions beyond his own kept it together.

Nobody could prevent the Seven Kingdoms from splitting up again (not necessarily into the seven or rather nine regions), only slow down the process.

[Kyll.Ing.]

This is a good read and an interesting theory but I take issue with a few things.

1. I don't think independence is Doran Martell's preferred goal, I think it was actually a marriage between one of his children and the next Targaryen King/Queen to improve his Houses standing.

2. Your underplaying the increased unity that's taken place over the past 300 years in Westeros. Regions are now more reliant on each other rather than more self sustaining it appears to me, for example the Reach and agriculture. They also now share a currency.

3. While independence holds attraction for some for many it's going back to a time of continual war whereas unity under the Targaryens has been more (although not totally obviously) peaceful.

4. The war against the Others could draw Westeros together against a common enemy, rather than tear it apart.

In short while I believe Westeros will be permanently changed by the events of the series I do not see a return to the previous Seven separate Kingdoms structure. If you look at real world history the trend tends to be the evolution to a 'nation state' after the feudal age, rather than a breakup back to smaller tribes and territories.

Edit: Thanks for the long explanation though, it has given me a lot to think about.

Thanks for the long answer! I'll try to address your concerns as best as I can:

1. Dorne was always the hardest kingdom to conquer. Daeron I lost sixty thousand men trying to take and hold Dorne, and they seem to be very distinctly different from the rest of the Westerosi, both in culture, appearance and traditions. It seems to me like independence would be a logical thing to strive for, though collaboration with House Targaryen may be a higher priority for the time being. It's been a while since I read those parts of the books.

2. Those are very good points. The seven kingdoms are closely linked by trade, that's for sure. Didn't stop them from breaking up mostly along old borders during the War of the Five Kings, though. Then again, that war led to famine and a destroyed economy, so it might serve as an example of your point rather than mine.

3. Again, a good point. Though, I think it is possible that the Seven Kingdom can be fairly united via alliances and trade, and perhaps in time build their own capital city (or maybe just use Oldtown). The point being, the current power seat, the Iron Throne and the city around it, was (literally!) forged on the back of a bloody conquest by a foreign family taking the realm by force. That is the order I think we'll see destroyed. The concept of Westerosi unity may still stand a chance, but I think King's Landing is a goner.

4. Yeah, the Others represent a wrench thrown into my theory. I've toyed with the idea of their threat being blown massively out of proportions (most anticlimactic plot twist in history?), but a full-scale Others invasion and a Battle for the Dawn as prophecised would clash badly with the idea of the realm falling apart. Then again, all it takes to end the centralized power structure of the Seven Kingdoms is a dropped cigarette in the wrong corner of King's Landing. What the rest of the realm would be doing at that moment is, in that sense, irrelevant.

[Dornish Vinegar]

The Seven Kingdoms was just the state of affairs when Aegon arrived. There is no reason why Westeros should go back to exactly that power structure. As things are, the realm the Targs forged is toast. But the war against the Others will probably reunite it. They don't stand much of a chance if they keep fighting another.

Indeed. It will be interesting to see if this is how it will go down. Clearly. with Aegon, the Seven Kingdoms were forced to be united--could they remain united on their own volition? Tune it at 11 to see.

Regarding the OP, I think you're mostly right. The burning of King's Landing is something that, what with the wildfire caches and dragons en route, things are adding up to. The dissolution of the Seven Kingdoms is something I'm less sure of, though it *would* be a poetic way to end the story. The North and the Iron Islands clearly want independence, but the rest of the kingdoms have a larger stake in keeping the status quo, given their lack of geographic isolation (minus Dorne and the Vale). Dorne, ironically, has a real interest in preserving the Seven Kingdoms because the Martells' revenge hinges on a Targaryen restoration, and no 7K = no lasting Targ restoration.

I think it's possible we see the North and the Iron Islands as independent kingdoms at the end, with the rest of the kingdoms attempting to remain as some semblance of the cohesive kingdom, perhaps with a capitol reestablished somewhere besides King's Landing after it is destroyed. Of course, at that point, there will be such a power vacuum (even if there is a King or Queen, they will have such a lose grip on the kingdoms after the destruction of KL) that the remaining kingdoms will probably conflict with each other and devolve into warring, de facto independent regions, so perhaps you're right. I don't really have any well-thought out ideas on the subject at all though, kind of just thinking out loud (as I'm sure is abundantly clear, lol)

[Mithras]

I agree that KL will mostly be burned and the capitol will be moved to Harrenhal (the seat of kings). This is something Aegon the Conqueror should have done. I think the king (Jon) will unite the Riverlands and Crownlands into new royal dominions and this way, the royal dominions will be the richest portion of Westeros.

[Minstral]

I think that the Iron Throne itself is a pretty good indicator of the type of kingdom the Targs created. Twisted swords that make up the spiky horror that GRRM envisioned.

Most likely, one way or another. Westeros does not possess the technology to keep such a vast continent under one rule. The only thing that could achieve that were Aegon's dragons. And a bit of inertia afterwards, where all the grievances aired out into the Blackfyre Rebellions (targeting the IT itself) and Robert's Rebellion (after which a very charismatic guy with ties to four! regions beyond his own kept it together.

Nobody could prevent the Seven Kingdoms from splitting up again (not necessarily into the seven or rather nine regions), only slow down the process.

Agreed. The Free Cities are not a threat that can topple Westeros so long as they war with each other, and the Wildings cannot fully supplant the people of the North even if they did conquer the Wall. They don't have the numbers or the means to produce good enough weapons and infrastructure. The greatest threat to the Iron Throne in the 300 years of its existence has always been the people turning on each other.

[Rhaegars Heir]

Most likely, one way or another. Westeros does not possess the technology to keep such a vast continent under one rule. The only thing that could achieve that were Aegon's dragons. And a bit of inertia afterwards, where all the grievances aired out into the Blackfyre Rebellions (targeting the IT itself) and Robert's Rebellion (after which a very charismatic guy with ties to four! regions beyond his own kept it together.

Nobody could prevent the Seven Kingdoms from splitting up again (not necessarily into the seven or rather nine regions), only slow down the process.

I disagree the system of mesanger ravens allows information to be sent over large distances relitively quickly and the idea of unified westiros in very much ingrained into the current culture of the continent and it raised the bar of the power a king can have and with the exception of rob and balon most would be kings won't settle for less when there's more to be had

[Bright Blue Eyes]

The current generation maybe, but the next?

[Rhaegars Heir]

The current generation maybe, but the next?

it would depend on the environment but I assume your talking about a generation that doesn't grow up during the war of 5 kings meaning the wouldn't grow up in a fractured kingdom so I doubt they'll be wanting I spectate either and not only that but as it's been said on here before a united seven kingdoms is a highly prospers one in times of peace and you'd have to be a fool to want to fuck that up I mean the idea of the north and river land separating came from the great Jon who his the brightest lord and I'd say it was his impassioned speech more than anything that moved everyone to follow him in that decision more than any form of logic

[Bright Blue Eyes]

The whole peace issue is Targaryen propaganda. The united Seven Kingdoms actually saw more wars and bloodshed than the original kingdoms.

[Mdoggy]

I think the 7 kingdoms will be 7 kingdoms once more.

I also think the seasons will stabalize too at the end of the series

[KING-OF-WINTERFELL]

The whole peace issue is Targaryen propaganda. The united Seven Kingdoms actually saw more wars and bloodshed than the original kingdoms.

Not entirely sure about that, judging by evidence we have e.g. wiki books we don't know for a fact whether one part of history was more peaceful than the other. seems like mores between underlords and their liege lord or with each other rather than between kingdoms.

[The Bittersteel]

The whole peace issue is Targaryen propaganda. The united Seven Kingdoms actually saw more wars and bloodshed than the original kingdoms.

I think I disagree with this. A few larger scale wars under the Targaryens compared to continual smaller scaled wars previously. Most of Westeros' castles appear to predate the conquest so that alone would suggest it wasn't too peaceful a time. We know that the Crownlands and Riverlands were continually fought over, as was the Reach-Dorne border.

[Mdoggy]

You get a throne, you get a throne, Everybody gets a throne!!!

[Theon {HUNGRY WOLF} Stark]

Iron Islands & North (if Starks come back ) will most definitly come back as seperate kingdoms.

As for Targ rule being peaceful, mayhaps it was more peaceful as some posters have suggested, but it also meant different kingdoms having to fight some Targ king/ queen's War of Ego (dance of dragons & blackfyre rebs). Whereas before they used to fight their own wars.

Also there is a case for North paying Taxes but not getting immediate help from IT against IB raids. IB are pissed because Targs had almost stifled their reaving ways and took so many islands from them.

On the point of Other invasion forcing them to remain united always, looks like we are forgetting what happened after the first long night. Before first long night there were hundreds of First Men kingdoms in westeros. After Ling Night North was united under Starks but rest continued in same way. Till the Andals came that is.

If first Long Night couldnt force them in one realm what makes people think that they will remain united this time (other than wishful thinking on part of their favourite character ie. Dany, Jon, Stannis rtc ).

First time around they even had one religion of Old Gods. Now there are three distinct religions in mainland westerosi mainland namely Old Gods, Rh'llor, Faith of Seven. Add to that Drowned God and you have got a religious potboiler.

Long story short there is no way Seven Kingdoms will stay united as one realm at the end of story.

My own wishful thinking - Northern Kingdom, I dont care about rest except mayhaps Dorne a little.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

I think I disagree with this. A few larger scale wars under the Targaryens compared to continual smaller scaled wars previously. Most of Westeros' castles appear to predate the conquest so that alone would suggest it wasn't too peaceful a time. We know that the Crownlands and Riverlands were continually fought over, as was the Reach-Dorne border.

We know that "hardly a generation passed where not 3-4 kingdoms were at war with each other". Counting the (known) wars involving at least three regions since the Conquest, I end up with thirteen. To how many generations? Most of them involved basically the entire continent as well.

And the smaller wars didn't cease either, examples upon examples upon examples, from great war to small feud.

[The Bittersteel]

We know that "hardly a generation passed where not 3-4 kingdoms were at war with each other". Counting the (known) wars involving at least three regions since the Conquest, I end up with thirteen. To how many generations? Most of them involved basically the entire continent as well.

And the smaller wars didn't cease either, examples upon examples upon examples, from great war to small feud.

I think to be honest this is something that's going to come down to opinion. Not enough information to prove either way. I was thinking of ways to measure this and it might be possible to take a look at the great families dynasties and see how many members died in battle in the 300 years before the conquest compared to the 300 years after. Not entirely accurate but might give a better picture. Hopefully the info becomes available.